So a legal opinion prepared to get rid of a corrupt Republican in 1973 is going

[rzemanfl]

to protect a corrupt Republican in 2019? That is such utter bullshit it boggles the mind.

[PoliticAverse]

1. There was also a legal opinion on the issue of Presidential indictment written in October 2000...

It's a 39 page analysis of the issue and you can find it on the DOJ website here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[rzemanfl]

3. Thank you for the link. I don't have time to study that document now.

The fact remains that had Agnew and Nixon not been such crooks, there would have been no 1973 opinion for the DOJ to agree with.

[marylandblue]

4. Also written to protect a President.

[rzemanfl]

5. Good point. n/t

[wasupaloopa]

2. You can't indict trump because he is too busy watching Fox, playing golf and tweeting.

[marylandblue]

6. Well if it makes you feel better, that opinion is not actually binding.

If the report makes clear he committed crimes and we get to see it, it may become politically difficult not to indict.

[Talitha]

7. Just a few thoughts...

The current (p)resident has been purposefully ignoring protocol.

So let's follow his lead.

Let's ignore the (questionable) protocol of 'not' being able to indict a sitting president.

If I understand correctly, the reason for not indicting a sitting president is because it would "cut into their daily workload."

LOL... OH YEAH.

Like this POS ever WORKS?

HA!!!!!

Nail his flabby ass to the wall.

The sooner, the better.

[fescuerescue]

8. Par for the course when it comes to law

There's always an unintended consequence of virtually anything in the legal system.

[triron]

9. If Mueller finds Trump is or even was an agent of Russia I bet he recommends indictment.